soc.veterans

In article
<73bc89a5-6418-4788-86db-a1dca260e2dd@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
"La N." wrote:

> On Apr 10, 10:15 am, "Billzz" wrote:
> > "La N" wrote in message
> >
> > >
> > > "Billzz" wrote in message
> > >news:268b8$47fdab70$9440b19b$7521@STARBAND.NET...
> > > .
> >
> > >> The United States of America would always, in any case, under any
> > >> administration, in any war, be better served with a draft army.  It would
> > >> cost less, any war would be over sooner - if it started at all, and the
> > >> service would not be the president's private army.  People who say
> > >> otherwise
> > >> are self-serving.
> >
> > > A draft army makes me kind of think that a helluvalot more people will be
> > > heading up to Canada from down your way ... ;)
> >
> > > - nilita
> >
> > Those are the self-serving people.  They are more important than the idea of
> > democratic rule.  They have their own rules.  They only obey the rules that
> > they agree with.  They might smoke pot with the words, "I'm not harming
> > anyone," or take your money with the words, "I didn't have any, and you had
> > a lot."
> >
> > I'm fairly sure that the governments had an agreement for the safety valve
> > of where the uncertain people could go.  I personally, do not care very
> > much, being somewhat relieved that I would not have a person like that, in a
> > unit with me, in combat.
> >
> > But the point of the paragraph is that the United States of America (not any
> > one individual) would be best served.  The nation would be best served,  and
> > most of the people would spend less resources, but, yes, it would be
> > detrimental to some individuals.  If the right of the individual precludes
> > national defense then it must preclude other things as well.  If I don't
> > have to follow one law, then I don't have to follow another.  I think it's
> > called situational ethics, or being amoral, something.- Hide quoted text -
> >
>
>
> You know? I understand your points, for sure. OTOH, I don't believe
> the American people would EVER allow a draft army to happen again.
> And, for many reasons. I could be wrong. But I can't imagine a
> scenario where it would happen again post-Vietnam era.
>
> - nilita

The Republicans have put a recession on the calendar to encourage
recruiting. PBS NewsHour had a battle of opinions on the state of the
Army which brought up the issue of stop-loss being a fact for those
still in the Army as of 27 March 2008. You get a chance to hear and hour
and a half with GEN Petraeus and the ambassador a few more times on
C-SPAN this evening. It includes Petraeus announcing that the state of
the Army isn't his concern. I hope to catch the rest of it because they
were less inclined to leave the blame at the feet of Muqtada al Sadr
today.

The Newseum looks like it will be a platform for the government
dissemination of information. But it will give you a look at lots of
front pages. Y'all DC types can catch the grand opening tomorrow.

--
So Hot: http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/08/331_noconfidence1.jpg
HRC loves VRWC: http://www.slate.com/id/2187473/
VRWC back: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_559659.html
Somebody's website: http://home.att.net/~meditation/biofuel-news.html